Allahabad High Court
The Commissioner Commercial Tax ... vs S/S I.T.C. Limited S.P. Marg Saharanpur on 26 July, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 99 of 2016 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S I.T.C. Limited S.P. Marg Saharanpur Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohan Gupta Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue and Shri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee.
2. Present revision (carrying a delay of 20 days) has been filed against the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, in Second Appeal No. 407 of 2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has, amongst others, held, the commodity 'toffee' being manufactured and sold by the assessee to be covered under Entry No. 137 Schedule II Part A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
3. Present revision has been pressed on the following question of law:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that toffee and candy manufactured and sold by the dealer are liable to be taxed in schedule-V of U.P. Value Added Tax Act or in the category of sweetmeat and sugar product as mentioned in schedule-IIA at serial no.137?"
4. While the Tribunal has specifically considered the sugar content in the product manufactured and sold by the assessee and the manufacturing process to reach the conclusion that the products were toffee manufactured by the assessee, in no situation, in the field of tax regime and laws, two persons can be treated differently for the purposes of rate of tax. One commodity has to be charged to tax at one rate. The revenue having chosen to tax the same or similar commodity at the lesser rate in case of other dealers whether manufacturer or trader, it cannot be permitted to take a different view as that may introduce uncertainty and arbitrariness in tax regime, which is never permissible.
5. By a separate order of the date (i.e. 26.7.2022), Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 39 of 2019 (The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. M/s Bhagwati Trading Co.) has been dismissed. Primarily, in view of the stand taken by the revenue, in case of another manufacturer - M/s Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. of the commodity and distributor - M/s United Traders and also in absence of material brought on record to take any different view, revision filed by the revenue on similar question of law has been dismissed. For the same facts and on the same reasoning, the present revision is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022 Prakhar